Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Nature of Mind, Described by Various Teachers
Sile
Veteran
I came across this description of a state of mind, as described by Ch'an maste Hsu Yun:
"This singleness of mind will be thoroughly still and shining, in its imperturbable absoluteness, spiritual clearness and thorough understanding, like the continuous smoke of a solitary fire." (http://buddhismnow.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/hua-tou/)
It reminded me of Sogyal Rinpoche's words:
"The nature of mind: Imagine a sky, empty, spacious, and pure from the beginning; its essence is like this. Imagine a sun, luminous, clear, unobstructed, and spontaneously present; its nature is like this. Imagine that sun shining out impartially on us and all things, penetrating all directions; its energy, which is the manifestation of compassion, is like this. Nothing can obstruct it, and it pervades everywhere." (http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nature_of_mind)
The similar descriptive elements--shining, luminous, clear, imperturbable, unobstructed--lead me to think it might be interesting to read through descriptions of the nature of mind, as presented by various teachers and schools.
I'm thinking mostly of the ultimate, fundamental nature of mind, but it would be interesting to look at descriptions of other states, too.
"This singleness of mind will be thoroughly still and shining, in its imperturbable absoluteness, spiritual clearness and thorough understanding, like the continuous smoke of a solitary fire." (http://buddhismnow.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/hua-tou/)
It reminded me of Sogyal Rinpoche's words:
"The nature of mind: Imagine a sky, empty, spacious, and pure from the beginning; its essence is like this. Imagine a sun, luminous, clear, unobstructed, and spontaneously present; its nature is like this. Imagine that sun shining out impartially on us and all things, penetrating all directions; its energy, which is the manifestation of compassion, is like this. Nothing can obstruct it, and it pervades everywhere." (http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nature_of_mind)
The similar descriptive elements--shining, luminous, clear, imperturbable, unobstructed--lead me to think it might be interesting to read through descriptions of the nature of mind, as presented by various teachers and schools.
I'm thinking mostly of the ultimate, fundamental nature of mind, but it would be interesting to look at descriptions of other states, too.
0
Comments
This is what the Buddha is supposed to have said: Metta!
30. "I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, brings about such happiness as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, brings about happiness."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.021-040.than.html
Only a developed mind is luminous.
Apart from that, it is still wrong in a way. Because impermanence is not a fundamental nature (or say property) of the mind. Because if it was a universal property of mind, the mind would somehow be something that stands above it, or entails it, holds it. To say there is some 'thing' that always changes, implies there is still this 'thing'. But something like 'the mind', doesn't exist. It's just an idea. What exists is just impermanent phenomena stuck together.
But of course, that almost gets us into the territory of just getting mixed up in explaining words. But I think sometimes it can be helpful to be straightforward and not use terms that in my eyes are quite vague.
With metta,
Sabre
I do agree it can be very confusing and we need to be careful about the terms and phrases we use. What I think is important is to recognize that when someone says "Mind" (not "mind"), this can also be expressed as "Emptiness" or "Buddha" (as in Dharmakaya). That makes it a bit less confusing.
Such a luminous mind is empty. It is unfindable, ungraspable, unborn, unestablished. Yet it can be fully known.
Enlightenment is the end of the five skandhas. That includes consciousness.
So true mind is no mind. The buddha never found a mind. Nor will you ever find a mind. Ignorance is believing there to be an actual, inherently existent mind. Call it one mind, call it my mind, etc. It is tangible and real to the ignorant. Because they are making the mind into an object. They make consciousness into an object. They make space into an object They make nothingness into an object. They make neither peception or non perception into an object.
If no object is found. Luminosity of mind is apparent. Yet it isn't an object, thing or anything that is found.
This must be made clear. Rigpa, non dual awareness, buddha nature is completely unborn and unestablished.
"Permanent" is a word used from our perspective, stuck here in impermanence. Sort of like describing an ant as "un-rhinoceros." Technically that's true, but the description is totally from rhinoceros's point of few, relative only to his world and how he sees things. As a term, it carries irrelevant baggage.
Eternal isn't even quite right, because it carries the feeling (to some) of something you can eventually reach, and then coast into eternity on, as opposed to something which has always been.
The timeline of eternity is hard to grasp from our relative position, since in eternity, there isn't a timeline, lol. So we're trying to assign time-related labels to something which is timeless.
We can know about heat, but that's not the same as experiencing heat. Experiencing heat has nothing to do with language. We can describe what it feels like to be experiencing heat, but simply describing it is not the same as experiencing it.
One way we can observe that describing it and experiencing may be two separate things, is that we can describe it while not experiencing it, and experience it while not describing it. Experiencing it is wordless.
So saying something is "unfindable" is probably related to saying it's "indescribable." You could ask the related question, "If it's indescribable, how can it be fully known?" The point isn't that one can't attempt to describe it - the point is that describing it is not the same as experiencing it.
One has to assume a certain amount of cheekiness in the teacher-student relationship, I think
"Through concentration, one tries to bring the mind to a very stable state. And on such stable clarity and single-pointedness, one then meditates on insight wisdom and through this one realises the true nature of the mind. But to realise such, one requires a tremendous amount of merit, and the most effective way of acquiring the merit is to cultivate bodhicitta. So with the two together, method and wisdom, one can realise the true nature. And when one has realised the true nature, on the basis of that and increasing wisdom, eventually one will reach the full realisation and will attain enlightenment.
http://www.kbi.com.au/cgi-bin/engine.pl?Page=page.html&Rec=23
if there are no thoughts occurring that are emanations being
projected, and when you look inward at your own mind inside yourself,
if there exists no projectionist who projects thoughts by thinking
them, then your own subtle mind will become lucidly clear without
anything being projected. Since the clear light of your own intrinsic
awareness is empty, it is the Dharmakāya; and this is like the sun
rising in a cloudless illuminated sky. Even though (this light cannot
be said) to posses a particular shape or form, nevertheless, it can be
fully known. The meaning of this, whether or not it is understood, is
especially significant.
- Padmasambhava
In the realm of philosophy there are many contradictions.
In the realm of practice no paradox to be found.
The idea that Buddhism is supposed to oppose Brahmanism is not found in the canon when we consider the many positive references to the Brahmins by the Buddha. The Buddha even calls himself a Brahmin.
Jennings writes in his book, The Vedantic Buddhism of the Buddha:
“It should never be forgotten that Buddhism is a reformed Brahmanism, as is evidenced by the invariably honorific use which Gautama makes of the title ‘Brahmin’ and it therefore takes for granted certain Vedic or Vedantic postulates. The background of Buddhism, as that of Brahmanism, is Brahma, the impersonal divine unity underlying and harmonizing all individualities, all egoism, all difference, and all strife.”
As for you passage from the Samyutta-Nikaya it pertains to the mind of a puthujjana whereas these passages do not.
"This mind (citta) is by nature shining, it is defiled-afflicted by adventitious defilements-afflictions; this mind is by nature shining, it is liberated from adventitious defilements-afflictions" (AN, I, 10 (1, 5-6)).
"When the mind is emancipated from these five defilements, it is supple, pliant, lustrous (pabhassara), firm and becomes rightly concentrated for the destruction of defiling impulses" (A. iii. 16, 17 (V, iii, 23)).
As to the Tathagata, his form is released (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is well liberated (Skt. su-vimukta-citta). ‘He exists after death’ does not apply (Pali, na upeti) [and the three other positions]. As to the Tathagata, his form is released (Skt. nirvrta), his mind is well liberated (su-vimukta-citta). He is deep, great, not subject to determination,
unreckonable, released (Skt. variant: a-prameyam a-sankhyeyam nirvrtam)” (SA,
905, 226b).
Where Brahmanism has Atman/Atta and Brahman, Buddhism has Anatman/Anatta and Emptiness/Mind/Dharmakaya.
Voidness is mind’s intrinsic nature; clarity-making is mind’s defining characteristic; the unity of that pair is mind’s essential nature.
Parted from all extremes of mental fabrication–-excellent and bad; the trio: arising, ceasing, and abiding; existence and nonexistence; static and nonstatic, and so on--beyond words and thought and yet, though parted from being recognizable (as a “this”), still exists as something that is experienced.
This vividly wide awake, stark clarity-making, with an intrinsic nature of bliss, clarity, and non-conceptuality, has many names. It is called:
*the identity-nature of great deep awareness
*the actual nature of the great self-arising
*the abiding nature that is the character of what is validly knowable
*perfect awareness
*the accordant nature (of reality)
*the equal nature (of samsara and nirvana)
*great blissful awareness
*(Buddha-nature) the womb containing a Thusly Gone One
*prajnaparamita, far-reaching discriminating awareness
*the omniscient mind
*the deepest
*voidness possessing the supreme of all aspects
Because all phenomena can be realized as the mind, it is called “Chittamatra, mind-only.”
Because it is parted from all extremes and a middle, it is “Maha-madhyamaka, the great middle way.”
Because it is difficult for everyone to realize, it is called “Guhyamantra, the secret protection for the mind.”
Because this smashes all deceptions, it is called “Vajrayana, the diamond-hard vehicle of mind.”
Because it beholds the essential nature of Buddhahood, it is called “Dharmakaya, a corpus encompassing everything.”
~Ninth Karmapa Wangchug-Dorjey (1556-1603)
(translated by Alexander Berzin, 1977, according to explanations by Beru Khyentse Rinpoche) [Note: I edited the format slightly--putting the list of names in bullet points, and reducing parentheses--for ease of reading. Original found below.]
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/mahamudra/karma_kagyu_mm/mahamudra_eliminating_darkness/part_3.html?query=nature+of+mind
"Recluse," monks, is a term for the Tathagata, the Arahant, wholly awakened.
"Brahmana," monks, is a term for the Tathagata...
"Discoverer (vedagû)," monks, is a term for the Tathagata...
"Healer," monks, is a term for the Tathagata...
"Stainless," monks, is a term for the Tathagata...
"Pure," monks, is a term for the Tathagata...
"knower," monks, is a term for the Tathagata...
"Freed," monks, is a term for the Tathagata, the arahant, wholly awakened" (AN VIII, IX, 85).
Also you might read the Brahmanavaggo in the Dhammapada.
I don't find any convincing evidence that the Buddha was dead-set against Brahmanism. He used terms from Brahmanism which are to be found in early Buddhist scriptures according to Dr. Nakamura. "Christian Lindtner has recently argued that Buddhism should be seen as ‘reformed Brahmanism’. (Asian Philosophy, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2002).
Buddhism deals primarily with the cessation of suffering.
Though the godrealms may bring tremendous freedom from suffering, it is still in the realm of perception of a thing, thus ultimately not liberating.
There is a place for the godrealms, but strictly speaking they do not touch the heart of Buddhism, which is emptiness.
Atman is clinging onto the luminosity as a thing or a no thing. Buddhism is saying go even beyond that.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?1463-Wrong-View-in-the-Apannaka-Sutta
I am trying to decipher the difference in your two sentences? Isn't your second sentence just stating what the first one says but in a different way?
Or does the mahayana tradition state that something more than just the kharmic effects moves over i.e. reincarnation? As opposed to other traditions that state rebirth?
So many questions...
:eek2:
By godrealms I meant taking anything to be eternal, permanent, independent. Of having an essence.
That can be space, that can be nothingness, that can be consciousness, that can be love, that can be self, etc.
These are accomplished and experienced meditators. As such they get stuck in the lovely qualities of such realms of mind. And there isn't nothing wrong with that but ultimately it isn't liberation as taught in the Buddhist canon.
It all falls in the realm of perception. To move beyond perception is the point. Non dual consciousness is the point.
But one must be careful not to reify anything into an object. Even the non dual consciousness itself.
There is no denial of karma, dependent origination and rebirth. As those make complete sense if one understands that suchness is empty, thus suchness can function unceasingly in completion.
Buddha nature is irrelevant if its not understood in context with the other two turnings of the wheel.
What this thread brought to the darkness of my ignorance was the word timeless.
Our conception of time is in form relative to the length of the human life.
Shakyamuni taught Dharma to all beings. There was somewhere where I read about different planets.. other beings he was describing that sounded very strange (from conditioned human perspective).. the two different species he described have an average lifespan of hundreds more years than us.
What is truly inspiring to me is to simply contemplate timelessness.
Some get so caught up in I have no time
(you really don't hehehehehehe)
and they stress themselves out thinking they'll never "make it" or that they have aeons left to reach enlightenment and this and this and that.
Timelessness really keeps it in proper perspective,
Bam.
Right here.
reference: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
The other, kharmic effect, is but the consequence of one's mental formations. For example, if I was to die angry at someone, plotting retribution of some sort, Buddha taught that intentions of violence would only lead to more violence. Perhaps one possessing such attitudes may wind up reborn in a less fortunate realm. Yet no part of the original being moves on. Just the effects that they created.
From the book:
"Enlightenment is the stae of pure mind. It is nondualistic knowning and is called primordial wisdom. Its experiences are authentic; that is, they are without illusion. Pure mind is free and endowed with numerous qualities.
Illusion is the state of impure mind. Its mode of knowledge is dichotomous or dualitic it is the "conditioned consciousness." Its experience are tainted by illusions. Impure mind is conditioned and endowed with much suffering.
Ordinary beings experience this state of impure, deluded mind as their habitual state. Pure, enlightened mind is a state in which mind realizes its own nature as free of habitual conditiones and the suffering associated with them. This is the enlightened state of a buddha" (p. 19).
Another comforting phrase for me along those lines has been, "With the master, there's no such thing as distance." (Sogyal Rinpoche) It was especially intriguing, since I'd heard a Hocąk philosopher say the same, exact thing not long before.
Mind is un graspable until conditioned.
Conditioning imbues it with inertia.
Un conditioned it remains everywhere.
Conditioned it's craves.
Un conditioned is fetterless.
Conditioned is suffering.
A conditioned mind is just the path
until it isn't.
spot on. what more is there to say?
Gratitude for that teaching.
Buddha was never a self-denier. The self and dharma are our refuge according to scripture.
We can talk about the qualities of the Mind. Say openness, stillness, silence, etc. The mind can be joy, love, compassionate, blissful, etc.
The very fact that the mind can have such qualities means the mind is conditioned.
Because it is conditioned it is a fabrication.
So an experienced mediator can move the mind towards joy, stilliness, peace, love all in under a minute.
Even the idea of true mind is a subtle reification.
One must take account that what is known and the knower are indistinguishable. On the basis of a subjective reference point we create the knower as a distinct entity from the known. In actuality they arise mutually.
What this means is that there is no awareness or source apart from the appearances. There is only the appearances arising due to conditions.
Sound, Smell, Taste, Thought, Sight, Sensation. These are all Mind. Not as an entity but dependently arisen suchness, utterly non dual. No "watcher" or subject perceiving an object. Just the arising suchness. Thus Mind is no mind. Unborn, complete yet unceasing.
So the reification can happen on a couple different fronts. One can reify the suchness into an object and then we have either oneness or constantly changing processes.
With oneness that is just a reification of the clarity as a thing.
With the constantly changing process it is still viewing a thing that changes and interacts. But there is no thing that changes and interacts. There is only change and only interaction, with no things.
One can also reify consciousness as a background or a true source. And that is just holding on two levels. First holding onto the space between thoughts as the watcher.
Second holding onto an essence of a center or reference point that we label consciousness.
The Buddha realized Atman but he saw the subtle clinging. Atman is the watcher blending into Brahma. The individual consciousness joining the universal. This is essentially oneness. Or everything is consciousness.
That sound like many buddhist teachings. And in a way its very useful for developing the qualities of awareness. But ultimately it is a holding of a source, essence, center, reference point. It can be a completely non verb, non conceptual holding.
The highest teaching in Buddhism is emptiness. In this example Anatman. The negation of the Atman. So one must really experience and feel Atman. This is always left at the level of intellectual theory or knowledge. If one can experience Atman then Anatman only makes sense in relationship to that.
Anatman points to the fact that thought this Atman is known. It also is a fabrication, perception, dependently arisen. When we look for the core of Atman, there is no core. It is completely essenceless.
This is because Atman is just the clarity of the arising suchness. Instead of one thing, it is a multitude of streams of consciousness arising and falling. The essence of atman must be looked at and penetrated.
That is what freedom is about. Completely traceless, going beyond. And whats left is non dual consciousness. Not as an object or subject. Not as a oneness or a thing. But as a multitude of the six streams of consciousness arising due to conditions and byebye due to conditions. Its all a magicians trick. No "thing" truly there. Not worthy of holding onto.
This brings divine dispassion and nirvana.
The subtle difference between Atman and Anatman must be experienced and recognized. Ignorance is deep.
The whole point of this is for freedom. Atman brings great freedom. But Anatman brings traceless freedom.
Buddha nature is empty. Mind cannot be found. Mind is no mind.
As such this is the point of Buddhism. Liberation. Not abiding as luminosity. But seeing that luminosity is always empty. They are the same thing.
We are trying to understand what the essence and nature of awareness is.
Essence is always essenceless. The nature is always to manifest. The manifestation is clarity. The essence is purity. Lalalalala.
"All the Buddhas and all sentient being are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces and comparisons. It is that which you see before you—begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error. It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured. The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient things, but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood."
The Mind that Ch'an master Huang Po is talking about has its source in this shastra:
“Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanet, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called “nonempty.” And also there is no trace of particular marks to be noted in it, as it is the sphere that transcends thoughts and is in harmony with enlightenment alone.” (The Awakening of Faith). (Italics are mine.)
Again good sons! Just as all rivers flow to the sea, all Sutras and all forms of meditation lead ultimately to the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Why? Because it expounds in the most excellent manner [the doctrine that all sentient beings] possess the Buddha-nature.
~HH Sakya Trizin
http://www.sakya.com.au/hhstnatureofmind/
"The Buddha addressed Ananda and Vaidehi, "Once this is seen, next one should visualize the Buddha. And why is that? The Buddhas, the Tathaagatas, are the body of the universe (dharmadhaatu) that enters into all of the sentient beings' thoughts and minds. This is why when your mind imagines the Buddha, this mind then is the thirty-two marks and eighty excellencies. This mind that creates the Buddha is the mind that is the Buddha. The Buddhas' true and pervasive knowledge is an ocean from which the mind's thoughts and images arise. This is why one should with a singleness of mind tie himself to mindfully and contemplatively examining that Buddha, that Tathaagata, that Arhat, that Supremely Awakened One." (Visualization Suutra, T365.12.343a18-24).